| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Eris" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2004 08:15:45 PM |
| Object: |
Tom Delay Admonished |
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans think
they said absolved.
.
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
08 Oct 2004 08:50:40 AM |
|
|
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans think
they said absolved.
It's the O.J. defense: keep denying and enough
of the right people might believe you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
08 Oct 2004 12:07:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet
stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans think
they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction" means "It's
okay to invade another country under false pretenses if you have other gripes
against them".
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
07 Oct 2004 09:24:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT, (Uncle
Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet
stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans think
they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction" means "It's
okay to invade another country under false pretenses if you have other gripes
against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
08 Oct 2004 08:44:47 AM |
|
|
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT, (Uncle
Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled upon
the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans
think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"
means "It's okay to invade another country under false pretenses if
you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused to
cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft, try to
assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit genocide on their
own people and use WMD against their own and other people, bribe UN
officials, subvert UN sanction enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
08 Oct 2004 11:30:49 PM |
|
|
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet
stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT, (Uncle
Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled upon
the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans
think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"
means "It's okay to invade another country under false pretenses if
you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused to
cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft, try to
assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit genocide on their
own people and use WMD against their own and other people, bribe UN
officials, subvert UN sanction enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't be any conflict
to gripe about. Of course, those things were the farthese things from our
President's lips when it came down to "why" we were going.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
08 Oct 2004 10:16:24 PM |
|
|
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled
upon the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans
think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"
means "It's okay to invade another country under false pretenses if
you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused to
cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft, try to
assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit genocide on
their own people and use WMD against their own and other people, bribe
UN officials, subvert UN sanction enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't be
any conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the
farthese things from our President's lips when it came down to "why"
we were going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all those
reasons were on the table before the war started. Even if they weren't,
the war against Islamic terrorism isn't something we can afford to lose
because of a technicality. And it is very clear from the recent WMD
report that Saddam was indeed a threat.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
09 Oct 2004 02:22:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:16:24 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet
stall:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled
upon the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans
think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"
means "It's okay to invade another country under false pretenses if
you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused to
cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft, try to
assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit genocide on
their own people and use WMD against their own and other people, bribe
UN officials, subvert UN sanction enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't be
any conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the
farthese things from our President's lips when it came down to "why"
we were going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all those
reasons were on the table before the war started.
I can appreciate this, and agree at least that they were "known". But I don't
recall them being offered as a major part of our justification. I don't think
it's wrong to cite those reasons, but the administration appears to be unable to
acknowledge just how strongly the WMD angle was emphasized or to be all that
seriously concerned over all the intelligence flaws to be uncovered since the
war began. These other issues were to all appearances non-issues. They cite
them now as if those were their stated reasons all along and that people have no
business questioning anything because these reasons exist. People clearly have
a problem with the way WMDs were used to motivate not only our country but
others as well into supporting the war. The administration's response at this
point amounts to nothing more than a shoulder shrug and a "So what?" If they'd
simply try to at least _act_ contrite instead of just brushing people's
objections aside, they'd go a long way in improving their public image. One
thing this administration does _not_ know how to do is apologize or make amends,
and that's going to be their downfall. Maybe this election, maybe not, but at
least in the history books.
Even if they weren't, the war against Islamic terrorism isn't something we can
afford to lose because of a technicality.
I agree, but don't view that as relevant to Iraq or Saddam. Saddam's was a
secular, not Islamic regieme. At most, he can be accused of associating with
certain elements of various Islamic terrorist networks for political purposes.
He was not loyal to them for any apparent moral reason, and likely would have
"abandoned ship" when it became clear that such groups could no longer be useful
to him. We wouldn't have needed to invade Iraq for this any more than we
presently need to be invading Saudi Arabia or Iran.
And it is very clear from the recent WMD report that Saddam was indeed a threat.
I agree that Saddam was a potential threat. There are many other such potential
threats ruling other countries, some possibly even worse. I'm not challenging
you when I ask these, I am seriously seeking your informed opinion on these
questions: What justification is there for invading Iraq but not these other
countries? Was Saddam a more immediate threat than any other anti-U.S.
dictator?
My own opinion is that we invaded Iraq for a number of reasons above and beyond
what we've already mentioned here: For one, settling a vendetta for papa Bush.
For another, while there are other threats in the world, Saddam's Iraq was one
of the most notorious and was also perceived at the time as one of the weakest
militarily. The vendetta for Papa Bush one might forgive so long as there were
enough legitimate reason otherwise.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
09 Oct 2004 09:27:44 AM |
|
|
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:417b893f.12754355@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:16:24 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled
upon the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He
was admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other
Republicans think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"
means "It's okay to invade another country under false pretenses
if you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused
to cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft, try
to assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit genocide
on their own people and use WMD against their own and other people,
bribe UN officials, subvert UN sanction enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't be
any conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the
farthese things from our President's lips when it came down to "why"
we were going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all those
reasons were on the table before the war started.
I can appreciate this, and agree at least that they were "known". But
I don't recall them being offered as a major part of our
justification.
This isn't a game where you have to get everything just right in order
to go to the next level. This is Real Life and we cannot afford to lose
on a technicality.
I don't think it's wrong to cite those reasons, but
the administration appears to be unable to acknowledge just how
strongly the WMD angle was emphasized or to be all that seriously
concerned over all the intelligence flaws to be uncovered since the
war began. These other issues were to all appearances non-issues.
They cite them now as if those were their stated reasons all along and
that people have no business questioning anything because these
reasons exist.
They were on the table the whole time. Even the Congressional resolution
lists more than just WMD's.
People clearly have a problem with the way WMDs were
used to motivate not only our country but others as well into
supporting the war. The administration's response at this point
amounts to nothing more than a shoulder shrug and a "So what?"
After all the investigations and all the testimony about them, I would
too. It's all water under the bridge.
If
they'd simply try to at least _act_ contrite instead of just brushing
people's objections aside, they'd go a long way in improving their
public image.
Visions of Billy-boy and his crocodile tears about Monica.
One thing this administration does _not_ know how to do
is apologize or make amends, and that's going to be their downfall.
Maybe this election, maybe not, but at least in the history books.
Probably not this election and almost certainly not in the history
books. Except for the ones Chomsky influences. :-)
Even if they weren't, the war against Islamic terrorism isn't
something we can afford to lose because of a technicality.
I agree, but don't view that as relevant to Iraq or Saddam. Saddam's
was a secular, not Islamic regieme.
That was changing. Saddam "got religion" especially after 9/11.
At most, he can be accused of
associating with certain elements of various Islamic terrorist
networks for political purposes. He was not loyal to them for any
apparent moral reason, and likely would have "abandoned ship" when it
became clear that such groups could no longer be useful to him. We
wouldn't have needed to invade Iraq for this any more than we
presently need to be invading Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Interesting that you mention those two. We are, of course, putting
pressure on both of those countries. They'd just bribe the UN like
Saddam did if we weren't right there in Iraq to keep an eye on them.
And it is very clear from the recent WMD report that Saddam was indeed
a threat.
I agree that Saddam was a potential threat. There are many other such
potential threats ruling other countries, some possibly even worse.
I'm not challenging you when I ask these, I am seriously seeking your
informed opinion on these questions: What justification is there for
invading Iraq but not these other countries? Was Saddam a more
immediate threat than any other anti-U.S. dictator?
Iraq has some strategic advantages. And yes, oil. Not for the US to
steal it (we could have bought it much cheaper) but to keep it out of
the hands of a raving madman.
My own opinion is that we invaded Iraq for a number of reasons above
and beyond what we've already mentioned here: For one, settling a
vendetta for papa Bush. For another, while there are other threats in
the world, Saddam's Iraq was one of the most notorious and was also
perceived at the time as one of the weakest militarily. The vendetta
for Papa Bush one might forgive so long as there were enough
legitimate reason otherwise.
Attempted assassination of a US President is a good reason.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
09 Oct 2004 03:26:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:27:44 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet
stall:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:417b893f.12754355@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:16:24 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled
upon the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He
was admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other
Republicans think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"
means "It's okay to invade another country under false pretenses
if you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused
to cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft, try
to assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit genocide
on their own people and use WMD against their own and other people,
bribe UN officials, subvert UN sanction enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't be
any conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the
farthese things from our President's lips when it came down to "why"
we were going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all those
reasons were on the table before the war started.
I can appreciate this, and agree at least that they were "known". But
I don't recall them being offered as a major part of our
justification.
This isn't a game where you have to get everything just right in order
to go to the next level. This is Real Life and we cannot afford to lose
on a technicality.
I didn't say we shouldn't have gone to war or that we shouldn't be fighting
terrorism.
I don't think it's wrong to cite those reasons, but
the administration appears to be unable to acknowledge just how
strongly the WMD angle was emphasized or to be all that seriously
concerned over all the intelligence flaws to be uncovered since the
war began. These other issues were to all appearances non-issues.
They cite them now as if those were their stated reasons all along and
that people have no business questioning anything because these
reasons exist.
They were on the table the whole time. Even the Congressional resolution
lists more than just WMD's.
People clearly have a problem with the way WMDs were
used to motivate not only our country but others as well into
supporting the war. The administration's response at this point
amounts to nothing more than a shoulder shrug and a "So what?"
After all the investigations and all the testimony about them, I would
too. It's all water under the bridge.
So the views of at least half the constituency is irrelevant to both you and the
administration, and this is perfectly justifiable to you. That's pretty much
what I already figured.
If
they'd simply try to at least _act_ contrite instead of just brushing
people's objections aside, they'd go a long way in improving their
public image.
Visions of Billy-boy and his crocodile tears about Monica.
Where did I mention Billy-boy and Monica? Why are you changing the subject?
Have I ever implied that I supported Clinton's actions wrt the entire
Lewinsky/Jones debacle? No. You're suggesting with the above that you somehow
think two wrongs make a right, and I simply cannot agree. The shortcoming of
the previous administration in no way justify or excuse the shortcomings of this
one. Your implication that they do is dishonest at best.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
09 Oct 2004 12:51:34 PM |
|
|
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:416f4764.5810648@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:27:44 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:417b893f.12754355@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:16:24 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon
the toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled
upon the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He
was admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other
Republicans think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass
destruction" means "It's okay to invade another country under
false pretenses if you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement,
refused to cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our
aircraft, try to assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists,
commit genocide on their own people and use WMD against their own
and other people, bribe UN officials, subvert UN sanction
enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't
be any conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the
farthese things from our President's lips when it came down to
"why" we were going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all
those reasons were on the table before the war started.
I can appreciate this, and agree at least that they were "known".
But I don't recall them being offered as a major part of our
justification.
This isn't a game where you have to get everything just right in order
to go to the next level. This is Real Life and we cannot afford to
lose on a technicality.
I didn't say we shouldn't have gone to war or that we shouldn't be
fighting terrorism.
Then why are you still complaining?
I don't think it's wrong to cite those reasons, but
the administration appears to be unable to acknowledge just how
strongly the WMD angle was emphasized or to be all that seriously
concerned over all the intelligence flaws to be uncovered since the
war began. These other issues were to all appearances non-issues.
They cite them now as if those were their stated reasons all along
and that people have no business questioning anything because these
reasons exist.
They were on the table the whole time. Even the Congressional
resolution lists more than just WMD's.
People clearly have a problem with the way WMDs were
used to motivate not only our country but others as well into
supporting the war. The administration's response at this point
amounts to nothing more than a shoulder shrug and a "So what?"
After all the investigations and all the testimony about them, I would
too. It's all water under the bridge.
So the views of at least half the constituency is irrelevant to both
you and the administration, and this is perfectly justifiable to you.
That's pretty much what I already figured.
That's politics. :-)
If
they'd simply try to at least _act_ contrite instead of just
brushing people's objections aside, they'd go a long way in
improving their public image.
Visions of Billy-boy and his crocodile tears about Monica.
Where did I mention Billy-boy and Monica? Why are you changing the
subject?
I'm not. I'm envisioning that scene where Billy-boy cried crocodile
tears on TV and "apologized" for the whole business.
Have I ever implied that I supported Clinton's actions wrt
the entire Lewinsky/Jones debacle? No. You're suggesting with the
above that you somehow think two wrongs make a right, and I simply
cannot agree. The shortcoming of the previous administration in no
way justify or excuse the shortcomings of this one. Your implication
that they do is dishonest at best.
Now calm down, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. YOU brought up
the bit about trying to _act_ contrite.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
09 Oct 2004 04:24:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:51:34 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet
stall:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:416f4764.5810648@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:27:44 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:417b893f.12754355@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:16:24 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon
the toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled
upon the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He
was admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other
Republicans think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass
destruction" means "It's okay to invade another country under
false pretenses if you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement,
refused to cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our
aircraft, try to assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists,
commit genocide on their own people and use WMD against their own
and other people, bribe UN officials, subvert UN sanction
enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't
be any conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the
farthese things from our President's lips when it came down to
"why" we were going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all
those reasons were on the table before the war started.
I can appreciate this, and agree at least that they were "known".
But I don't recall them being offered as a major part of our
justification.
This isn't a game where you have to get everything just right in order
to go to the next level. This is Real Life and we cannot afford to
lose on a technicality.
I didn't say we shouldn't have gone to war or that we shouldn't be
fighting terrorism.
Then why are you still complaining?
If you honestly don't know that, then you haven't been reading what I've been
saying. That's okay, I'm sure I've been guilty of that too on occasion. But
I'm not going to repeat myself.
I don't think it's wrong to cite those reasons, but
the administration appears to be unable to acknowledge just how
strongly the WMD angle was emphasized or to be all that seriously
concerned over all the intelligence flaws to be uncovered since the
war began. These other issues were to all appearances non-issues.
They cite them now as if those were their stated reasons all along
and that people have no business questioning anything because these
reasons exist.
They were on the table the whole time. Even the Congressional
resolution lists more than just WMD's.
People clearly have a problem with the way WMDs were
used to motivate not only our country but others as well into
supporting the war. The administration's response at this point
amounts to nothing more than a shoulder shrug and a "So what?"
After all the investigations and all the testimony about them, I would
too. It's all water under the bridge.
So the views of at least half the constituency is irrelevant to both
you and the administration, and this is perfectly justifiable to you.
That's pretty much what I already figured.
That's politics. :-)
Then that's a sad, sad statement on politics. I happen to care very much what
those opposed to my ideology think and feel. Even fundy Christians. Of course,
I suppose that's a rather recent development in my psychological evolution. But
still, it's just sad that more people can't try to be that way. The world would
be a much better place for all concerned.
If
they'd simply try to at least _act_ contrite instead of just
brushing people's objections aside, they'd go a long way in
improving their public image.
Visions of Billy-boy and his crocodile tears about Monica.
Where did I mention Billy-boy and Monica? Why are you changing the
subject?
I'm not. I'm envisioning that scene where Billy-boy cried crocodile
tears on TV and "apologized" for the whole business.
Have I ever implied that I supported Clinton's actions wrt
the entire Lewinsky/Jones debacle? No. You're suggesting with the
above that you somehow think two wrongs make a right, and I simply
cannot agree. The shortcoming of the previous administration in no
way justify or excuse the shortcomings of this one. Your implication
that they do is dishonest at best.
Now calm down, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. YOU brought up
the bit about trying to _act_ contrite.
I'm perfectly calm, but thanks for the suggestion.
I guess "acting contrite" was a bad way to put it. One can acknowledge
differences of opinion and be sensitive to them in their discussion without
pretending to be sorry for the disagreement, and without pretending that they
might ever possibly change their stance. Simply acting like your opponent's
entire world view is irrelevant and that any disagreement on the matter is
meaningless is the most infantile form of disagreement there is. But then
again, I guess as you said above, "That's politics". :-/ Humanity in general
really isn't mature enough to be on its own, are they? Yet we are. How sad for
us. :-(
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
09 Oct 2004 12:28:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:16:24 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled
upon the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans
think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"
means "It's okay to invade another country under false pretenses if
you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused to
cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft, try to
assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit genocide on
their own people and use WMD against their own and other people, bribe
UN officials, subvert UN sanction enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't be
any conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the
farthese things from our President's lips when it came down to "why"
we were going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all those
reasons were on the table before the war started.
Those reasons weren't agreed upon to start a war by the people. The
people thought we were in immediate danger of being threatened by
WMD's. We weren't and there was no good reason for Bush to think so.
He had the information otherwise. It is quite clear he purposely
ignored it.
Bush did not have the support of the people to start a war for those
other reasons. Until he did, he was completely unethical to
misrepresent the danger and use that mistaken permission to go to war.
Even if they weren't,
the war against Islamic terrorism isn't something we can afford to lose
because of a technicality. And it is very clear from the recent WMD
report that Saddam was indeed a threat.
No it wasn't. It was quite clear that Saddam was defanged and of no
immediate threat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
09 Oct 2004 09:29:36 AM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:416b7545.55660250@news-west.newscene.com:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:16:24 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled
upon the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He
was admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other
Republicans think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"
means "It's okay to invade another country under false pretenses
if you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused
to cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft, try
to assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit genocide
on their own people and use WMD against their own and other people,
bribe UN officials, subvert UN sanction enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't be
any conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the
farthese things from our President's lips when it came down to "why"
we were going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all those
reasons were on the table before the war started.
Those reasons weren't agreed upon to start a war by the people.
Read the bill that authorized the use of force in Iraq again.
The
people thought we were in immediate danger of being threatened by
WMD's. We weren't and there was no good reason for Bush to think so.
He had the information otherwise. It is quite clear he purposely
ignored it.
Bush did not have the support of the people to start a war for those
other reasons. Until he did, he was completely unethical to
misrepresent the danger and use that mistaken permission to go to war.
Even if they weren't,
the war against Islamic terrorism isn't something we can afford to
lose because of a technicality. And it is very clear from the recent
WMD report that Saddam was indeed a threat.
No it wasn't. It was quite clear that Saddam was defanged and of no
immediate threat.
Read the ISG report again, too. Sanctions were failing. Saddam was
importing weapons and materiel right under the UN's nose.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Moorehead Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
09 Oct 2004 12:34:40 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in message news:<416b7545.55660250@news-west.newscene.com>...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:16:24 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled
upon the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans
think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"
means "It's okay to invade another country under false pretenses if
you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused to
cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft, try to
assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit genocide on
their own people and use WMD against their own and other people, bribe
UN officials, subvert UN sanction enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't be
any conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the
farthese things from our President's lips when it came down to "why"
we were going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all those
reasons were on the table before the war started.
Those reasons weren't agreed upon to start a war by the people.
Sure they were. I read the UN resolution - and the 17 preceeding UN
resolutions that had been defied by Saddam - didn't you? What part
don't you understand?
The
people thought we were in immediate danger of being threatened by
WMD's. We weren't and there was no good reason for Bush to think so.
Yeah. No good reason. Except British intelligence said Saddam had
WMD. Russian intelligence said Saddam had WMD. French Intelligence
said Saddam had WMD. Egyptian intelligence said Saddam had WMD. The
UN itself - Hans Blix - had never issued any sort of statement that
Saddam had fully complied with all of obligations to disarm. So,
yeah, if you discount what virtually every other country on the planet
said at the time, Bush had no reason to think what he thought.
He had the information otherwise. It is quite clear he purposely
ignored it.
It's not a matter of "ignoring" - more simplistic moonbattiness.
Clinton, I'm quite sure, was given two sides about the prospective
retaliatory target in the Sudan after the African Embassy bombings -
some were probably telling him not to bomb that factory, because it
might be an aspirin factory. Others insisted it was a chemical
weapons plant. Clinton decided it was a chemical weapons plant, and
it turned out to be an aspirin factory. Oh well, ***** happens when
you are a terrorist-supporting nation. I didn't support Clinton in
general but during those rare times he did act to defend this nation,
I supported him. There's no such thing as perfect intelligence about
anything. You have to make decisions based on a preponderance of the
evidence and the possible consequences of NOT acting.
Put yourself in the position of a sheriff who has been informed by 90%
of the folks in one neighbrhood of a drug dealer operating out of a
crack house on the corner. You gather witness statements from folks
you trust, and they all say the same thing - the house is a crack
house and the dealer inside is not only dealing crack, but he's the
neighborhood bully who intimidates and terrorizes the residents into
submission, threatening their lives if they speak. You take your
evidence to a judge who issues you the warrant to raid the crack house
- as you and your fellow officers bust in, you don't find huge
stockpiles of crack, but you find small amounts of crack, crack pipes,
baggies, scales, thousands of dollars in cash, etc. Oh, and by the
way, the dealer has a 12-year long record of dealing crack. The
dealer gets arrested - not for stockpiles of crack, but for the
paraphanalia. In the meantime, local zoning ordinances are used to
condemn the crack house and it will never be used again to sell crack.
Now, by YOUR way of "thinking", and I lose the term loosely, the bust
went wrong - no stockpiles of crack found. Not only that, the sheriff
screwed up by not asking permission from other nearby counties if he
had permission to bust the crack house. The good people terrorized on
that street by the crack dealer who's now in jail - to hell with them,
they are not your concern. No stockpiles of crack were found, so the
bust was bad. And the sheriff who ordered the bust should be fired.
Right?
Bush did not have the support of the people to start a war for those
other reasons. Until he did, he was completely unethical to
misrepresent the danger and use that mistaken permission to go to war.
Even if they weren't,
the war against Islamic terrorism isn't something we can afford to lose
because of a technicality. And it is very clear from the recent WMD
report that Saddam was indeed a threat.
No it wasn't. It was quite clear that Saddam was defanged and of no
immediate threat.
You obviously haven't read either the Deulfer OR the Kay report -
Both reports corroborate each other - Saddam kept small samples of WMD
and was biding his time to reconstitute the programs as soon as he
could bribe the UN via the oil-for-food program for a green light and
an end to sanctions.
Under the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire, Saddam agreed to eliminate his WMD
stockpiles - *AND* - the ability ever to recreate them. Economic
sanctions were to remain in force until U.N. inspectors stated that
WMD capabilities had been fully and verifiably eliminated. That work
was expected to take a year or two, but Saddam decided to play cat and
mouse, cheat and deceit, connive and conceal, frustrating the
inspections as best he could for 12+ years and escape the grip of
sanctions.
It was NOT necesary for the US to find stockpiles of WMD - it was
Saddam's responsibility to fully, immediately, and unconditionally
cooperate with the UN inspectors. He kicked them out completely in
1998, and they stayed out for FOUR YEARS until Bush reminded the UN
that normally, dictators who start and lose wars don't get to decide
for themselves how and when they comply with their surrender
agreements. It was president Bush who put forth a UN resolution that
ALL members of the UNSCR agreed to unanimously, and Saddam had 6
months afterward to prove to the world he had disarmed. But it was
more of the same. He was simply playing the game - thinking he could
play Bush the way he'd played Clinton. Coupled with the fact that he
was continually being reassured by the French and Germans that the US
would never move against him.
OOPS.
mj
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
09 Oct 2004 02:43:15 PM |
|
|
On 9 Oct 2004 00:28:05 -0500, (Kate ) wrote:
Those reasons weren't agreed upon to start a war by the people. The
people thought we were in immediate danger of being threatened by
WMD's. We weren't and there was no good reason for Bush to think so.
He had the information otherwise. It is quite clear he purposely
ignored it.
Bush did not have the support of the people to start a war for those
other reasons.
What? Support of the people? Are you tempting the President of The Universe with
a test? Why shouldn't "he was annoyin' me" be reason enough to plunge the country
into a war it may not see the back of for a decade?
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
09 Oct 2004 11:02:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:28:05 -0500 in episode
<416b7545.55660250@news-west.newscene.com> we saw our hero
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ):
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:16:24 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled upon
the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans
think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"
means "It's okay to invade another country under false pretenses if
you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused to
cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft, try to
assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit genocide on
their own people and use WMD against their own and other people, bribe
UN officials, subvert UN sanction enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't be any
conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the farthese
things from our President's lips when it came down to "why" we were
going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all those
reasons were on the table before the war started.
Those reasons weren't agreed upon to start a war by the people. The
people thought we were in immediate danger of being threatened by WMD's.
We weren't and there was no good reason for Bush to think so. He had the
information otherwise. It is quite clear he purposely ignored it.
Bush did not have the support of the people to start a war for those other
reasons. Until he did, he was completely unethical to misrepresent the
danger and use that mistaken permission to go to war.
Even if they weren't,
the war against Islamic terrorism isn't something we can afford to lose
because of a technicality. And it is very clear from the recent WMD
report that Saddam was indeed a threat.
No it wasn't. It was quite clear that Saddam was defanged and of no
immediate threat.
It's funny to watch the neo-cons try to spin this one. The report confirms
that containment was working and Iraq was no threat to us.
But you can't argue with the religious. The True Believers never let
evidence get in the way...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
10 Oct 2004 10:41:37 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:Qpidneqh7cXWKfXcRVn-jg@megapath.net:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:28:05 -0500 in episode
<416b7545.55660250@news-west.newscene.com> we saw our hero
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ):
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:16:24 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon
the toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled
upon the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He
was admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other
Republicans think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass
destruction" means "It's okay to invade another country under
false pretenses if you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused
to cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft,
try to assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit
genocide on their own people and use WMD against their own and
other people, bribe UN officials, subvert UN sanction
enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't be
any conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the
farthese things from our President's lips when it came down to
"why" we were going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all those
reasons were on the table before the war started.
Those reasons weren't agreed upon to start a war by the people. The
people thought we were in immediate danger of being threatened by
WMD's. We weren't and there was no good reason for Bush to think so.
He had the information otherwise. It is quite clear he purposely
ignored it.
Bush did not have the support of the people to start a war for those
other reasons. Until he did, he was completely unethical to
misrepresent the danger and use that mistaken permission to go to
war.
Even if they weren't,
the war against Islamic terrorism isn't something we can afford to
lose because of a technicality. And it is very clear from the recent
WMD report that Saddam was indeed a threat.
No it wasn't. It was quite clear that Saddam was defanged and of no
immediate threat.
It's funny to watch the neo-cons try to spin this one. The report
confirms that containment was working and Iraq was no threat to us.
FROM the report summary:
" The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a
key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a
terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see
that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further
undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use
infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of
sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within
striking distance of a de facto
end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade
embargo, by the end of 1999."
But you can't argue with the religious. The True Believers never let
evidence get in the way...
Oh, the irony.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Delay Admonished |
10 Oct 2004 12:51:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 23:02:19 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:28:05 -0500 in episode
<416b7545.55660250@news-west.newscene.com> we saw our hero
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ):
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:16:24 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in
news:41706952.4580390@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
7On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
Eris <vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:tgubm014dbstu46gotc2p31lbhjgc6l54k@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:07:02 GMT,
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:15:45 -0400 in alt.atheism, Eris
<vithant01@nospamcomcast.net> defied the status quo and scrawled upon
the toilet stall:
Apparently Tom Delay and fellow republicans have dysphasia. He was
admonished by the Ethics committee, but he and other Republicans
think they said absolved.
Rather like they think "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction"
means "It's okay to invade another country under false pretenses if
you have other gripes against them".
And incredibly 47% of americans agree with them.
Minor complaints like they violated a cease-fire agreement, refused to
cooperate with umpteen UN resolutions, shoot at our aircraft, try to
assassinate our Presidents, sponsor terrorists, commit genocide on
their own people and use WMD against their own and other people, bribe
UN officials, subvert UN sanction enforcement...
Just trivial little gripes of no particular consequence.
Had those been the stated reasons we went to war, there wouldn't be any
conflict to gripe about. Of course, those things were the farthese
things from our President's lips when it came down to "why" we were
going.
Other than the extent of the UN corruption in Oil for Food, all those
reasons were on the table before the war started.
Those reasons weren't agreed upon to start a war by the people. The
people thought we were in immediate danger of being threatened by WMD's.
We weren't and there was no good reason for Bush to think so. He had the
information otherwise. It is quite clear he purposely ignored it.
Bush did not have the support of the people to start a war for those other
reasons. Until he did, he was completely unethical to misrepresent the
danger and use that mistaken permission to go to war.
Even if they weren't,
the war against Islamic terrorism isn't something we can afford to lose
because of a technicality. And it is very clear from the recent WMD
report that Saddam was indeed a threat.
No it wasn't. It was quite clear that Saddam was defanged and of no
immediate threat.
It's funny to watch the neo-cons try to spin this one. The report confirms
that containment was working and Iraq was no threat to us.
But you can't argue with the religious. The True Believers never let
evidence get in the way...
Amen.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
